Quote: "TRUE BELIEVERS, INTEGRITY, AND TRUTH": Everyone believes in something. Even those who say, "I don't believe in anything," believe that they don't believe anything. So, believing, at least while in human form, is inevitable. 
    BeiYin: You might be right referring to average people, but I don't agree in generalizing that much. From my own experience I can say, that there exist a state of mind, where believing in something, whatever it might be, is not present and where no personal need for any kind of belief exist. It is a simple but clear awareness of oneself and all around. To get to this state it doesn't need a concept like 'FF' or others are offering, it comes by itself throughout the process of life. What indeed is needed, is taking responsibility for oneself and so creating awareness to respond to whatever comes to someone... (That's one reason because I respect the 'atheists'... even if their NO-beliefs sometimes are as strong as the beliefs of other people, but they try at least to maintain an open and responsible attitude to life, free of constructed morality and other concepts...) 
    Comment: I'd love to hear more of what you mean by "simple clear awareness of oneself and all around" -- it may be one of few modes of awareness. Is it awareness of oneself as an individual, or of oneself as The One, the only One there is? 
    BeiYin: I don't know anything about 'modes of awareness'. I just know that I am aware and that there is no separation from my awareness. I might say: I am the awareness. I am aware that I am. That's all and it is nothing special for me and it is not dramatic at all, so why to make a fuzz out of it? It is kind of natural and so it can be for everybody. The only difference might be, that my awareness is not swallowed by identifications. So there are no beliefs, they are not needed... About 'the only One there is' an atheist would say: Is this a concept? What is it? Is it an experience? There is only my experience of my awareness right now... 
    Comment:| You are a bit vague here. Do you mean that it is a kind of awareness of The One, The only One there is, while still maintaining an awareness of your individuality? 
    BeiYin:|| If there is awareness of the One, (whatever this might be) then there is someone who is aware of the One, but if there is only the One, then there is no one left to be aware of something, just the One, so the individuality must have gone, even if there is awareness. Yes I am vague in my expression, but I think it is better to keep this subject out of the discussion circle and come back to it, when we see that there are people really interested. 
    DL: When I am aware there is definitely this feeling of self... but I expect that is not the important part. The important part for me is that when I am aware I look at the things within and around me as they are, for themselves. When I am not so aware I often catch a glimpse of something, then go off to draw a picture in my mind (meanwhile ignoring other things I might look at). While I'm drawing the picture I form all sorts of responses and conclusions not to the thing I have seen but to the picture I have drawn in my mind. So this is the differentiating factor... that awareness connects me to the things around me, to what I call reality... whereas lack of awareness is categorized by a lot of thoughts that were merely inspired by something I saw. 

    Quote: INTEGRITY Being in "integrity" means that we act on our inner truth. Integrity acts like an internal tuning fork vibrating whenever we hear truth. Strictly mental arguments (logical though they may be) will not make the fork vibrate. These strings of logic don't source from the heart. Sometimes, our beliefs take us far from our integrity. When this happens, we become unhappy, because lying keeps us in illusion. We feel separate from others, ourselves, and God. 
    Comment: I like that. 
    BeiYin:| Yes, beautiful words and in so far even true... 
    DL: I notice you [FF] said act... in point of fact the activities that one partakes of, when measured against the activities that one would rather partake of (whether or not one knows of those) is the measure of integrity. Few people seem to realize the spewing words is another kind of activity in and of itself. Anyway I don't think one can talk about integrity as a short-term process, I think it is is something that happens over long periods of time. Kind of like gusts of wind can push a sailboat to and fro... but a strong steady wind can be used to move the sailboat willfully. 
    FF: To stay in integrity, our beliefs must be the same as our inner truth. 
    Comment: Almost impossible to accomplish, due to the human conditioning.
    BeiYin:| I would go one step further and say: this has no real sense and is only said to impress the innocent reader. And so it unmasks the 'beautiful words' as half truth. 
    DL: I think this is oversimplification. Definitely the activities one partakes of should reflect 'inner truth' for someone who has integrity... but 'belief' is just another activity one can partake of or ignore. 
    Quote: Aren't "beliefs" the same as "inner truth"? For some beings, they are; for others, they are not. Those who grant their beliefs precedence over their inner truth are "True Believers."
    BeiYin:| What is said in the quote is unclear. To be able to understand this, every used word must be explained precisely. What are: "beliefs", "inner truth", "True Believers"? Without knowing the exact meaning this writings are only impressing or confusing. 
    DL: And this is one of the fundamentals: people do NOT all agree to the same degree on definitions of words. Words are a highly subjective phenomena. I know it is in vogue to believe that different people view them the same way, but in my experience this is just not so. 
    Comment: And some may have both "inner truth" and modes of perceiving reality, which equals beliefs.
    BeiYin: *Integrity* can only be the result of a personal process, it is not possible to gain it through a concept or an attitude or behavior. Though it can be used as a promise or a bait to trap people who are in need. Subjective truth serves the personal purpose, the belief system and the needs of a person are part of this... Mostly the 'inner truth' of a person turns around those personal purposes and makes the 'fork' vibrating when this 'truth' is touched or attacked and so the person reacts by defending him/herself... 
    DL: Exactly. Either a person is ready and willing to decide for himself whether or not he is ready for true integrity, or he is not. But there needs to be caution here; it is very much a part of the human condition to presume nice things about oneself even when they aren't true. A person of integrity will probably be examining his activities carefully to see how they line up with his thoughts... and will solve his own problems in so doing it. This is not a gift that can be given; when a person is ready he will reach for it himself.
    BeiYin: ...Beliefs doesn't make a person unhappy, as you say, and *integrity* has nothing to do with it. What makes a person 'unhappy' is the discrepancy between *reality* and her/his beliefs and the difficulty or impossibility to live it, that means, to bring those beliefs and concepts into daily life. So I guess you are adding another possibility for being unhappy, by offering your concept of 'integrity' and other supplementary and auxiliaries... 
    Comment: Indeed, the belief system is part of the human conditioning, part of what we actually are, of our psychological makeup. A degree if integrity may be obtained -- actually, each and every human being, or many human beings, have some degree of integrity. Yet, as long as one is given to the human conditioning, one cannot act in integrity all the time. 
    DL: This comes back to what I said about awareness. When I lack awareness and am drawing pretty pictures in my mind, I often find myself drifting to and from or even in circles. I lack integrity during such moments... but when I become more aware later on I start acting more in line with what is actually happening around me. 
    BeiYin: Yes and when it happens is the action authentic? And not just the result of a belief? (The pressure of fear of being punished for not fulfilling a given law, for example.) It doesn't look like that there are 'many human beings with integrity' not even with some degree of it. Otherwise the world would look different...
    DL: What is this preoccupation with needing to know when others or even oneself is being authentic? The basic problem I see with that is that you have to pull out the mental map, draw some more pretty pictures to validate or invalidate the objective claim about authenticity. But as I have mentioned, drawing those pictures is what I do when I am unaware... so if I am going to go doing that I am going to go reinforcing my lack of awareness. 
    Comment: Though all humans are subjects to the human conditioning, we all are being given free will as well. Each and every human acts at times out of the conditioning and at other times out of one's soul, or one's higher faculties. 
    BeiYin: About 'free will' we will need to discuss later on. I don't know what you mean by 'soul'. The 'higher faculties' might be part of conditionings... 
In most cases the 'inner truth' of a person turns around those personal purposes and makes the 'fork' vibrating when this 'truth' is touched or attacked and so the person must defend him/herself. Beliefs doesn't make a person unhappy, as FF says, and *integrity* has nothing to do with it. 
    Comment: Agreed, yet, there are good chances that when acting in integrity a person will be more in acceptance of oneself, thus, one's feelings may improve as well. 
    DL: I think so. The more integrity I can summon up at any given time the less I have to depend on the whims of others to act in my favor rather than against me. And what others do is for the most part just that: acting on whims. 
    BeiYin: If it is real integrity, yes, but if acting is the result of a concept which is adapted, than there will be no more acceptance and feelings will not improve. It is just lying to oneself and others. 
    Comment: Indeed, one of the things we all have to be intent upon is distinguishing the real from our various concepts...
    BeiYin: Yes, but what is the 'real'? Now, is it another concept? People are identified with their concepts, that makes them real for them. So there is nothing else what could be more real, so they will need to adopt another concept to be able to distinguish? I guess that's another game, they are turning around themselves because this is the only reality they know: their thoughts, their feelings, their body and altogether the pain and suffering which mostly results from it and of course also the pleasure which sometimes they can achieve. How can people distinguish from what? There does not exist another reality which could give a point of reference. There are the 'personalities' with their experiences, that's their reality and there are their beliefs. That's what they are. How can they distinguish? They first have to pass a state of limbo where they give space to something apart of the old. (You didn't like the "formula" (click here: Poems) but their I said it quite clear and vividly.) 
    DL: Exactly. Many people are so stuck in relating to things in i the old way that they are accustomed to that even if you tell them 'forget that old stuff and try something new' they will relate to THAT statement in and old way they are accustomed to. So it is really up to the other person to make a move; all the help in the world is to no avail if they aren't ready to accept that help. 
    Comment: ... As much as it is wise to be careful of empty words and notions, real integrity is highly valued in my eyes.
    BeiYin: There seems to be a different how we see it: If people using words, that means that they express themselves, then these words are never empty. Words might be used to hide behind them, so they seemed to be empty. But when we look behind the meaning or emptiness of words, then we can see the fear or desperation, or the longing for love or whatever... So words are never empty. 'To be carefully of empty words' could mean, that we should learn to express ourselves more direct. In the first place we should express our feelings, that would mean that first we need to allow our reactions to come out, then to accept them as a visible sign of our structure which works from the unknown background of each person. etc.etc. 
    DL: And a lot of that is information you have to infer for yourself. What it amounts to is to say nothing of objective reality, only to indicate your personal preferences where relating to others is concerned. 
    BeiYin: What makes people 'unhappy' is the discrepancy between *reality* and their beliefs and the difficulty or impossibility to live and bring into daily life those beliefs and concepts.
    Comment: This is one of reasons for being unhappy.
    BeiYin: The main reason of daily life unhappiness I would say. 
    Comment: There are many other reasons, like being not accepted and unloved by others, for instance. 
    BeiYin: Yes, but the main reason is the same: the discrepancy between reality and what this person wants, producing unhappiness... If I am sovereign then I don't need to be accepted and if I really love, then I don't depend on love of others. If there is a need, than there is dependency. If I depend on others, then I will be disappointed and I will suffer and be unhappy... So to protect themselves people close up, they express themselves less and their words seems to be even more empty...
    Comment: The core reason that all relativity, life included, is constructed of the pairs of opposites. 
    DL: Clearly, if I maintain the postulate 'happy' then the concept 'sad' comes up so that I have some way of differentiating what is happy. But if I maintain no concepts about happy, does the thing sad actually have to exist? 
    BeiYin: Sorry, but this sounds as confusing and unrealistic as FF's phrases. What can be done with this information to help the suffering 'human fellow being'? I can't see it like this. Life is not 'constructed'. The opposites are the result of the reacting system. And why the individual system reacts this way depends on the personal background, that...> 
    Comment: Well, it may be seen as an empty phrase and it may be the actual reality of the matter -- that everything in the relative, phenomenal existence is constructed of the pairs of opposites. Anyone may accept my view as much as not accept it -- no need that everyone will agree with everything everyone else is saying... 
    BeiYin: One thing because I am not as happy as I could be is that there is a huge need for information how to get out of suffering. And I am concerned about this and have to make the experience that it is so difficult to transmit something to people, specially if it has to do with 'truth', that several times I gave up. So if I have made another attempt now with the Internet, it is out of my serious effort for helping others or as you say: the fellow human beings. As a result of trying all my life I got a key that can be used by everybody, so I will go on trying to transmit information about it... So it is important that people understand what I am saying... 
    DL: Well, you start by presuming you should be happy rather than by accepting what you are. That leads to trying to go somewhere you aren't. Furthermore is the presumption itself about happiness actually valid, or is it merely another part of the human conditioning process? Words don't exist in a void either... when they aren't being used as pure decoration there is supposed to be some sort of relationship between words and activities or experiences. But if someone hasn't experienced the things you know of as the key... then you saying the words meaning the key to them is just an empty concept in their mind; they don't have the same experience as you do as to what the words mean. So in general the only people who can understand your key are the ones who have already taken the first step out of normal conditioning. Although it might be an important thing for them to see that someone has gone ahead of them... For the masses, the people who have not taken the first step on their own... there is nothing you really can do. Oh you can carry them around until you get sick of it, but it won't help... There is a way to deal with the situation but it is not guaranteed to work for all people. At some point you will probably realize the futility of trying to do for others what they can only do for themselves... 
    BeiYin: ... is the structure build up (here you could say 'constructed') by life experience. Which is the result of all the reactions of this individual structure and so resulting new reactions, confirming personality, producing unhappiness etc.etc.etc. 
    Comment: Thus, pain and pleasure, happiness and unhappiness will always be there. 
    BeiYin: You are talking about yourself or human potential in general? If it is a statement about the possibilities of human individuals in general, then I can't agree. Al these reactions as suffering, pleasure, happiness and unhappiness will be experienced as long there are goals and wishes, connected with imaginations, concepts, fantasies, etc. Because the individual is identified with all this and has invested with his/her concepts most of their energy to fulfill these needs and then being confronted with (daily) reality which then brings success or not and so with it reactions of happiness or unhappiness... There is an ending of these reactions. Because there is a state... 
    DL: All of this is in the realm of sensation. I know it is in vogue to think one must act according to the sensations one gets... but one CAN go independent from sensation if one wants. 
    Comment: Your [BY's] theory may be valid only upon an experience of what you state. Now, is it your experience, or only a theory? If it is your experience, please elaborate the conditions that may make one happy all the time. 
    BeiYin: To be happy all the time is the dream of the average consumer in this society, that's not what I am talking about. Indeed there is an ending of suffering produced by reactions of the individual. I know this from my own experience and it is not an occasional or temporary happening, it is a more or less permanent state, though I would call it a 'transparent state' and indeed I am living it. When I see all the suffering around me, then I feel that I want to do something about it and I feel that I am responsible to share my knowledge with my 'human fellow beings'. So I can't say that I succeeded with this attempt, even I have tried for the last 20 years, but I learned a lot about reality of human nature in this time and maybe now has come the moment to share what I have learned... I have written a book about all this. It is written in German (click here Buch: Bezug zum Sein) 
   Comment: In the light of my own experience, such a situation is impossible to attain, by any individual, due to the basic nature of reality. 
   DL: Notice you said 'in the light of my own experience'. I will refer you to the above discussion about people who are so convinced that their experience is the limit to things... and then say in MY experience it is quite possible to attain a situation wherein one feels the feelings associated with happiness and maintain that situation for indefinite periods of time. However it may not be the wisest thing to try to force such a situation on oneself. 
    BeiYin: I don't know what you mean by 'basic nature of reality'... Why is it, that your experience differs in this point? 
    Comment: Suffering may be eliminated, but being free from suffering doesn't mean being happy all the time. 
    BeiYin: I didn't say this. And I haven't said that someone must be happy all the time, not even happy at all... 
    JP: I know what you mean here. It depends how you define happy I suppose. Life exists on some kind of straight line; not up or down. When that kind of zig zagging between the straight sine wave ceases, things are as they are. And nothing is really a "happy" smily happy, and things are much "better" than simply being free of suffering. And that state isn't a mediocre or flat experience; sounds like this is the state that Bei-Yin describes here. 
    Comment: When one is connected to all other humans, when there is even one other human in pain, complete happiness cannot be there -- in the face of others' pains. 
    DL: So it is impossible for me to enjoy it when you are in pain? But I thought some people liked that!
    BeiYin: ...of being where 'personality' is *transformed* and so not anymore identified with beliefs, imaginations, concepts, etc. and not bound to the world of consuming, included spiritual, religious and all other concepts. So there can't be produced any kind of extreme happenings, reactions like happiness or unhappiness. If you own 100 million $, you wouldn't be unhappy to loose one $? And you wouldn't be happy just finding a dirty $ in the street. Right? 
    Comment: Again, theory, or experience? 
    BeiYin: Again: I am living it and it works on the practical level of daily life. Well, I didn't need to go through the heavy thing to make 100 million $ to experience that this gives a kind of quietness but doesn't make really happy. Though even I have quietness and I feel 'light', I can't say, that I am constantly happy, I can even say that there is no need for this kind of happiness at all... And sometimes, there is something even more quiet and lighter, but this is not a feeling, it is just me without being identified with any feeling. It is more that *I am* the quietness and the light, there is no separation and as I said before: it is not a happening. It is so transparent that there is no beginning and no end... There is no one who is separated from awareness. There is no 'higher Self', there is just my self. So that's another reason because I don't like so much the use of these words. I can't describe it better. About all this I am writing the first time because you triggered it, but still I can't see much sense in it. What can another person do with it? I guess nothing or maybe can get confirmation for her or his concept. I see myself as a normal person and not different from other people. I should try to write a poem about it, that might say it better. I have written one in Spanish, (click Poema). But you know all that! And you know also, that this is not based on reactions... Of course Donald Duck the multimillionaire is angry when he looses 5 Cent and he is dancing out of joy when he finds a dirty Dollar. But we are not McDonald Ducks, aren't we? 
    Comment: A state of being happy all the time is impossible to attain. Even at enlightenment a person is not happy all the time, though there is nothing one lacks. 
    DL: Again I would caution you to distinguish what 'happiness' might be from the sensations you associate with happiness. The sensations ARE attainable... but whether there is anything left ot be happy/sad or what would cause it to be happy/sad is another issue entirely. 
    BeiYin: With all my respect: How do you know? Are you enlightened? 
 It should be clear now, that I am not talking about being happy or not and that it is because of not being identified with reactions especially when they are unconscious or half-conscious... 
    Comment: Being enlightened means being one with the Supreme Self constantly, all the time. In this definition, I'm not enlightened, yet, I've experienced this state long enough to know about it and what it means. 
    BeiYin: What does it mean? 
    DL: I would agree you have been SOMEWHERE nice, and I would agree that you like it, but I would ask you how you know where the place you have been fits into some hypothetical objective viewpoint. Have you experienced a lot of such places, that you can get some idea of how such places relate to each other and to life in general?

    BeiYin: I can accept that. It is just that I can see how many misinterpretations of the word 'Supreme Self' or 'Higher Self' have come along with it since the time when Paul Brunton's book was published (I don't know the English title, must be 'The way to the Self' or similar) In deed it is not possible to understand it. As I said: Only an artist can understand what art really is. So we know that people love to make concepts about every thing they have not realized and they do it also with 'Self', up to the ridiculous extent, and this I have heard with my own ears, that Shirley McLain described on a stage in a weekend seminar in Los Angeles, that she met the higher Self in her vision and he was a beautiful young man with blond hair! 
    BeiYin: Isn't it sad that famous people are using their popularity to transmit such an innocent nonsense? But is this nonsense so different of other concepts?! I would say that every concept has the same effect: It separates from reality, that means from the direct experience of oneself... 
    DL: Be careful with nonsense. Often it is more truthful than the normal sane approach...
    Comment: The human suffering can be eliminated, which is what The Third Circle speaks about, yet, getting out of suffering does not mean being happy all the time. 
    BeiYin: 'To eliminate suffering' sounds violent. I don't know what the 'Third Circle' is, I will have a look in your web side... 

    BeiYin: If you ask me, I would say yes, I have found a practical way. 
    Comment: Are you willing to share it? If it's actually working, it's something humanity didn't know so far. 
    BeiYin: Yes I will. We will find the right way to do so. 
    DL: I hope you do. My way is antiquated and very painful for those who live through it... and not guaranteed to work either.
    BeiYin: So why do you say that for enlightenment it is necessary to enunciate one's individuality? 
    Comment: The whole "phenomena" of the infinite, absolute Supreme Self and of enlightenment are beyond the mind and beyond the ability to comprehend them, even by the mind of the enlightened...
    BeiYin: In deed. But why then you are talking about it at all? 
    Comment: ... Anyhow it is *you*, whatever that *you* may be, which may be identified with being individual, or, renounce your identification with individuality and by doing so realize your true identity as The One, or the Supreme Self... 
    BeiYin: Now, there seems to be no doubt, that this is a concept: to 'renounce' my individuality to realize my 'true identity as the Supreme Self'?! I admit this is a very sophisticated concept, but still a concept, which brings with it the identification and the 'fighting for the omelet' (Click Formula of Life itself) with all its multiples games around it. So people might be busy for the next 20 years or longer. How is it possible to 'renounce identification with individuality'? This must be a highly sophisticated trick! It seems to me, that this is a promise which can't be fulfilled. Or have you the proof that it works and can be realized soon? Are you the proof yourself? If I don't ask this now, the reader of this discussion circle will do it. (As we dare to represent ourselves in public, we will be examined up to the bones!) 

     Comment: ...This is a reality beyond words and beyond the understanding of the mind. All words used here are only for want of better words. 
    BeiYin: So someone could call these words 'empty words', - to describe a hopeful concept which promises the fullness...
    Comment: Well, some can talk about things they know nothing about, and some others may talk about the same things out of knowledge based on their own experience. In my view, what counts is the place the person talking is coming from, not the words or phrases being used...
    BeiYin: I suppose you are talking out of knowledge. What counts in my view is not the place a person is coming from, but the place where the person is in this very moment. That means: How a person is expressing him/herself (it counts a lot which words and phrases are used), what the actual position is, the behavior, the way how a person responds to another person, what the person hides, how a person defends her/himself, what are the irritable and vulnerable spots of this person, etc.etc. 
    Comment: ... If you have aversion to the word enlightenment, I'm perfectly willing to drop the subject. 
    BeiYin: I have no aversion to the word. I have a aversion how the word is used by people, specially by so called 'gurus'. For example in >alt.conciousness.4th-way< where everybody seems to be a master and talking about 'enlightenment'... I haven't met a person, who were using these words as 'self-expression'. I met several 'gurus' but all were describing a concept. That's also the reason because I hardly use the words 'god' and 'love'. Sometimes I don't want to talk at all, because of the same reason. Like an artist who is tired of talking with decorators and businessmen. You are more like the artist, so you will not feel offended. I am right or wrong? 
    DL: I know what you mean. Everything I say sounds sane to me, yet I am forever being misjudged by people who know the correct keywords to say. 
    JP: ...like BeiYin I have a "problem" the word 'enlightenment', it's not a word I ever really use. To me using that word is projecting a goal into the future, with some imagined reward or state. And so the assumption is made that one is going to have to do something to attain the goal. And essentially, this word has little to do with what is happening *now*. But I do think we can know who we are and "wake up", but the word 'enlightenment' seems to make it into a special exclusive state, when in my view all people should already know who they are and be "awake." Then again, we can't know the full implications of knowing who we are or of being awake, unless we are that way. Personally, I know that it is possible to know who I am, firstly because I don't know who I am. And I have glimpsed "knowing who I am". And I know I am asleep, because I have known what it is like to be awake. But even these things I really can't direct myself towards; as far as I'm concerned whatever happens, happens. It's not my concern to "worry" about what happens in the future, just do all I can in the present. 
    Comment: ...Yet, in such a case you will have to define what you mean by self-realisation. It seems to me you are talking, at times, about the same thing, only using different words. For me the reality is what counts, not so much the words used... 

    JP: ...Just thinking about the purpose of any discussion like this. One "problem" there may be is that when I'm reading this I generally "agree" with Bei-Yin's words (and much of White Eagle's), and in fact I'm surprised about the similarities between his view and mine. But if I "agree" with everything he says and let it stand; then I have nothing to say. There can be an attitude of mine that everything he is saying is a certain perspective or description of reality for him, and so there's nothing for me to say about that. The truth is the truth, can't argue about the truth because it is as it is, and I can't argue about Bei-Yin's perceptions of it because that is just his perception of it. But I think the point in a discussion like this is to just clarify or get the "best" or most accurate descriptions, or to see if we can provoke or allow new or clearer perceptions of the "truth" as it were.

    BeiYin: (Back to the quoted article) So I guess FF is adding another possibility for being unhappy to all the other existing ones by offering the concept of 'integrity' and other supplementaries and auxiliaries...
    WE: Integrity doesn't have to add possibility for unhappiness, as much as it doesn't have to add a possibility for happiness.
    BeiYin: *Integrity* not, because it is the result of a realized state of being, but a concept does add these possibilities, because it causes artificial behavior, rigidity, closeness, defense, etc. and will be confronted by the inner reality of the individual and the outside reality as well...

    Comment: We seem to agree on the difference between the real thing and an empty notion of it. I was talking about real integrity. Anyhow, many people act, at times, out of integrity, even before attaining full Self-realisation, which is synonym to enlightenment. Acting in integrity may add to one feeling OK about oneself, the concept of integrity, without acting upon it, or when mistakenly expecting to act this way all the time may indeed add disappointments and frustrations.

    BeiYin: (Back to FF article) FF is right by stating, that lying keeps people in illusion and that this keeps them in separation. - 
    Comment: Well, people are in illusion anyhow, both when lying and when speaking truthfully ... how many of us actually perceive reality as-it-is?
    JP: You make the assumption that reality is as it is! Though I know what you mean by that. I am someone who mostly sees things as they are; but I am in a very unnatural state that precludes much more than just a perception of things as they are, and it doesn't go very "deep." 
    BeiYin: (Back to FF article) It is possible to be real honest and to realize that the personality keeps itself together by defending this fragile illusion which is a composition of lies... But this possibility to get through is rarely practiced. (I am not judging, it is what it is, of course with all its negative results...)

    Quote: THE GROWTH OF INTEGRITY As we grow in spiritual awareness and veils lift, behavior that once worked for us becomes inappropriate. 
    Comment: Inappropriate by what standards? 
    DL: He's probably talking in terms of what one needs to do to continue. 
    BeiYin: (to FF) Is this a promise to those who accept the proposal and believe in it? 
    DL: Probably not, I would guess. One of the essential steps seems to be to learn the difference between belief and lack of belief.
    FF: Our actions are not genuine.
    BeiYin: Of course the actions of a normal person are not genuine, to be genuine only can be the result of an individual process... 
    Comment: A definition by FF of what is meant by acting genuinely is called for. Without explaining, or showing what FF means it's impossible to refer to it. 
    BeiYin: FF does not give any explanation. I think it is worth to find one. But I suppose FF is not interested to give details. His words and impressing phrases might serve as a bait to attract innocent seeker.

    FF: When we act out these old behavior patterns (usually out of habit), we notice that we are not in integrity. 
    Comment: Have you found a way to breakthrough all human conditioning, all behavior patterns permanently? Have you accomplished absolute freedom? If you speak of your experience, that's one thing, and I'm eager to hear about it. If it is only a theory, - my experience proves that attaining absolute freedom from all conditioning is impossible -- that is, prior to attaining enlightenment. And attaining enlightenment means complete renunciation of one's individuality... 
    BeiYin: What's in the quote looks pretty much like theory and is part of a concept which is offed... But how can you have an experience about something you could not attain? Because of not having the experience, you can't come to the conclusion that it is impossible! Seems like because you couldn't reach the grapes, so they doesn't exist. You are not logical. As you haven't attained freedom, as you say, so that means that you are not enlightened. If you are not enlightened you can't make a statement about it. You might have looked through the keyhole, so your view was narrow... and now your statements are still conditioned.
    Comment: As I said earlier, though I'm not there all the time, I've been there long enough to know what it's like.
    BeiYin: If you want to discuss about 'enlightenment' then we should keep it out of this circle, because I think it is too far out of the practical level. (no chicken, no egg = no omelet) But if there is somebody else interested, OK, we can try to deepen this subject... 

    BeiYin: (Back to quote) How should these old behavior patterns be acted out? Behavior patterns are defended with teeth and clutches by all the individuals, they notice it and feel attacked and as a victim, when they can not live their 'way of life' by interference owing to circumstances. 
    DL: So what is wrong with letting them live with their clutter? 
    FF: This behavior creates instant karma.
    Comment: Is there an action which doesn't create Karma? If yes, what action and how does it work? 
    BeiYin: I would say it is the action of an enlightened individual! 
(Back to quote) 'Karma'? You are using it like a big stick in the background, which will hit if somebody will not have taken over your concept. 
    FF: We become vulnerable to - and even invite - attack. 
    BeiYin: People indeed are vulnerable, because reality is often too much in contra of individual 'truth' and it is difficult to manipulate other people and the reality... 
    FF: We must defend our illusions. 
    BeiYin: Exactly! That's what everyone does most of the time, that's the main reason of suffering all over the place, because 'illusions' are connected with 'personality'...
    FF: Other beings sense the discordant vibrations and take a poke at them. - At some level, everyone knows we are lying. 
    BeiYin: Yes, this is called *unconscious*. That is the game: to poke on others and so to strengthen the own position. 
    FF: What can we do when we step from integrity? 
    BeiYin: You mean from the 'concept of integrity'. That will happen every moment and so you might need to close up not to be open to influences which could interfere with your concept. You are only 'open' to what confirms your concept...

    FF: A common response is to feel guilty. 
    BeiYin: Right, this is a common way to hold on one's identity and personality.

    FF: Guilt is a third- and fourth dimensional affair - a response of the emotional body. 
    BeiYin: Wow, this sounds great, impressive! I guess nobody will understand it. 

    FF: We feel bad about our behavior. 
    BeiYinb: Rarely people feel bad about their behavior, even if it is the worst possible. As result for example the destruction of health of each individual and final the destruction of the planet Earth. They feel bad (and react) if their beloved behavior is put in question by someone. (They will ignore an intruder and if this is not possible, probably they will kill him.) 

    FF: Brooding over our acts, however, isn't practical if we are to live miraculous lives. 
    Comment: What do you mean by living miraculously? You may have a valid answer, yet, without having a valid answer it sounds to me like a "New Age" empty phraseology. 
    BeiYin: We live! That's miraculous. Whatever we do, how much foolish we are, whatever mistakes on whatever level we commit, - we live! As long as we are conscious about ourselves and this does not necessarily need a healthy body or mind or feelings, we live! That's the miracle! To use it as part of a concept, is a trick to mix truth with lies, I can't agree with the way FF is using 'miraculous'. 

    FF: An alternative response is to use guilt as an indicator. It signals that we have side-stepped. We then take appropriate steps to realign ourselves with our new picture of truth. 
    BeiYin: That's the old story of feeling guilty being a sinner... 2000 years of manipulation... 
    Comment: Indeed, all people feel guilty, at times, all people feel that they are right, at times.

    FF: "OUTSIDE AUTHORITY" A True Believer has found an outside authority to tell them what is true. We've all been True Believers at some point. The outside authority could be a teacher or guru, a philosophical system, a book, a channeled entity, a diet, a religion, a science of any kind, or a political system. 
    BeiYin: (To FF) Or your proposal. - Indeed it is the whole system to which we are engaged. 
    FF: Not everyone who is dedicated to a cause or belief is a True Believer, though. Some beings may serve a particular cause gracefully and sincerely. 
    Comment: What is a "True Believer" and what distinguish such a person from a "non-true believer"?
    BeiYin: (To FF) That is: Their willingness is used by the system or particularly by an interested group. (Which might enclose you and your concept.) 
    Comment: Indeed, an interested group is also the whole of humanity with the common perception of reality into which we are born.

    FF: These individuals are positive, evolutionary forces. 
    Comment: Please define positive and negative, evolutionary and non evolutionary, and please state by which standards something is considered as positive, or negative, etc. Without such definition and statement it is but empty phraseology.

    BeiYin: (To FF) Are those people you are talking about, not bound in the system of illusion, lies, manipulation, defense etc.?

    FF: If you look closely, you will find that love motivates these people, not their beliefs. 
    Comment: What people? I need to meet such people in order to watch closely ... 
    BeiYin: It is good that in now days people are more carefully accepting beautiful words. So they will not swallow that easy those big words... 
    Comment: Well, at least some people are more careful ... 
    Beiyin: Yes, but also more afraid, so more closed up, even then maybe a bit more aware...

    FF: Love is life, beliefs are ideas. Unlike True Believers, these wise people won't try to manipulate you to make you change. 
    BeiYin: Where are these wise people? You are talking about yourself who has written this? There is a lot of manipulation in it, playing with conceptions of words, pushing buttons of peoples needs etc.

    Quote: BEHAVIOR. - If we are True Believers, we will accept (and often, preach), 100% of the group's rhetoric. We agree to believe those parts of the dogma that we "sort of know" aren't true for us. On faith, we will overlook and even defend these inconsistencies. 
   Avid True Believers can be defensive or offensive. We can display arrogant, paranoid, or anal retentive behavior. We can become unpleasant or even dangerous. (In groups, we can start wars.) Supporting a lie, we are easy to anger and quick to strike. To avoid this pitfall, remember that *all* beliefs (/dogmas/pictures of reality) are incomplete and relative. All are biased. Even if we combined all beliefs in the universe, these limitations would still apply. 
    BeiYin: So it is.

    Quote: THE TRUTH True Believers are lovers of Truth.

    Comment: And what is this Truth? Do you actually know it, or do you have a belief about it? Suppose someone does love the absolute truth, does this love make this one actually know this absolute truth? Does this love make someone drop all beliefs (which include all concepts about reality and the actual perception of reality)?

    BeiYin: It seems to me, that believers are lovers of their own truth and this is what they defend. A 'true believer' is obviously somebody who is true to that what he/she believes, what could mean, that this person defends him/herself stronger than an average person, whose belief system is more flexible.

    FF: For them, living in a human body isn't easy. 
    BY: There is only one body and this one is human and this is the best we have. I guess this is much easier than to live as a human in an animal body, or not? <|;-{)> If there is not enough appreciation for the body then because of a concept which suggest something better, but this only can be an idea which gives an alternative identification and separates the person from reality and an important part of it is without any doubt the *body*. 

    FF: As an analogy, let's say that the Truth travels at the speed of light. We are in human bodies - vehicles equivalent to a 1968 Volkswagen Mini-Bus. The planetary consciousness didn't design these vehicles to reach the speed of light. 
    BY: You are putting up an untouchable authority and call it 'planetary consciousness', which makes it sound very impressionable. I refuse your authority and I prefer to walk. I don't need any speedy vehicle to reach *truth*. Indeed, there is no where to go, the *truth* is where *I am*. 
    Beiyin: What about the 'Supreme Self'? People will automatically see an authority in it if they don't have the experience what it really is. 
    FF: Truth exists as the union of all spirits in this Universe: *Truth is a living entity.* 
    Comment: Any living entity is relative, thus, no living entity can be the Ultimate Truth. The Ultimate Truth is absolute, transcendent, beyond all relativity, beyond all concepts and beyond all entities. In other words, the Ultimate Truth is life itself, but not any particular living entity, or, it is everything that exist, including all living entities and everything else which is not an entity. 
    BeiYin: I guess this is well said, though hard to understand... 
(To FF) Whatever 'truth' might be, as long, as it is not a living experience of the individual, it is part of a concept which will serve to fabricate 'true believers' and to give them the tool to go on in their believe and to convince other people to join... 

    FF: In Roman Catholic terms, this entity is The Holy Spirit. 
    BeiYin: Whatever terms, it is still a concept. You can build big and very impressive buildings around it. This all is men made and serves the purpose of personality, it is far from spirituality, spirit or whatever mystical words you will find or invent.

    FF: As humans, the Holy Spirit can move through us. 
    Beiyin: That's part of a concept. You make a separation between spirit and humans. This is not *truth*. There is in deed no separation. The separation is made by people, giving concepts and mixing *truth* with personal needs.

    FF: We, however, can never speak the Truth. 
    BeiYin: If we speak out our personal truth and we express ourselves with responsibility, responding to others and the world, enclosing our own needs, than this should be enough and it would be better to stay with it in all its consequence.

    FF: Whenever we speak, we must use words. 
    BeiYin: We can use words but we don't 'must use words'. We can 'speak' by *expressing* ourselves, there are many ways, by doing or not doing. We express ourselves by *being*... expressing with our face, our eyes, our hands, the whole body, with everything we *are*. We express ourselves how we respond to others... All this talks clearer than often words can do it. 
    JP: But words are all we have to express this kind of material. In other words(!) it would very difficult to get the same kind of precision by miming or dancing about these issues! We're basically dealing with the mind and the verbal level here over the internet, and what happens on that level seems to profoundly affect all the other levels of a person.

    FF: Words form pictures, and through these pictures we share our (biased) opinions about reality. *The very act of speaking prevents us from expressing the Truth.* 
    Comment: Yet you write about the Truth with words, and you refer to the Truth as being something other then my own experience ... 
    BeiYinb: There, where is no *truth*, it can't be expressed. Words can be vehicles for *truth*. They can, due to their limitation, be misused, but this mostly is the limitation of the one who receives the words. Everybody is expressing the truth he/she represents. There is no other truth right now. 
We only can receive the *truth* from outside which we are reflecting from our own truth... 
    Comment: Well, at times truth is being perceived from the inside ...
    BeiYin: Right. But this inside is also outside from been seen even from more inside. ;-)
    FF: Language is dualistic, the Truth is not. Being human, then, leaves us only with opinions. 
    Comment: Well, according to your own words, which I don't agree with, if you are human than all you may have are opinions, no actual knowledge of what you call "the Truth" ... Thus, all you talk about are your opinions, nothing you know for a fact ... 
    Beiyin: Language is not dualistic, but people are. And as language is used mostly by dualistic people it looks like, there is no other use possible. (Chinese is not a dualistic language, but a dualistic person will use it in a dualistic way...) Isn't poetry the language which comes near to a non dualistic expression? At least that's what I am trying to do in my poetry.

    FF: Because of our inability to grasp this elusive (yet all encompassing) entity, many settle into systems that provide a decent substitute. (They become True Believers.) 
    Comment: If you cannot grasp this elusive entity, why talk about it? ...Or do you claim that you grasp what no other human can? ... 
    BeiYin: You can't say 'no other human' because you don't know all of them! - Maybe FF is claiming it, let's wait for his responds.- What it looks to me FF wants to 'sell' a concept and this always is connected with giving hope. The hope to get what is promised... Isn't this the background of all beliefs? 
    Comment: Yes, I've noticed they were selling hopes, only, what they say just cannot be -- either there is something no human can know (like what they said) -- in such a case they themselves, as humans, don't know it, they utter words about something they themselves declare they cannot know... 
    JP: Often enough the problem is that if you don't communicate in a way that at least allows beliefs, then there is nothing to say or you can't say anything that people who do "believe" beliefs will be able to grasp. This is something I have to deal with in my writing. A belief can be used temporarily as a tool in the knowledge that that is all it is. So you can pick it up and use it and see what you can do with it and then drop it. Yet I think ultimately there is a point where you don't need to pick up new beliefs at all, where you can perceive clear "what is really the case" entirely free of them. I liken belief systems to different glasses you can pick up and see reality through. Even what I am saying here appears as a belief, but I don't believe it!
    Beiyin: (Back to FF) A 'true believer' has taken a substitute, that's what is suggested? 
    FF: Some prefer this alternative, rather than to live with the certainty that we are all equal in our uncertainty.
    Beiyin: That's it. But now you call the substitute an 'alternative'? And that because it seems to be impossible to live in uncertainty? 
    JP: Or you could even forget about both of them; certainty or uncertainty. No question = no answer. Remove the idea of there being a question and you can't be uncertain about an answer! Both of them are unnecessary "strategies." Or to say this is another way, uncertainty doesn't have to be a dilemma or a problem, so it doesn't have to expressed as uncertainty! 

    FF: Depending on your relationship to your pictures of reality, you find this information to be liberating, confronting, wrong, or an opinion. 
    BeiYin: The relationship is mainly based completely on identification and you are not providing any danger by touching it seriously. People normally select what fits to them so it is confirming their state of being they are used to and what they try to keep.

    Quote: "THE FACTS" Facts are opinions that one or more people think are true. All facts are relative in relation to dimension, time, and philosophical persuasion. For example, look at a chair. Some say: "That's a chair and that's a fact." This fact is relative to time, because fifty years ago, the components were trees. Maybe fifty years from now, if fire destroyed it, it would be ashes. This fact is relative to dimension, because on, say, the tenth dimension, a chair is not a chair. It represents a unified fragment of the whole universe. 
    Beiyin: First tell in beautiful words the 'truth' or something innocent people can swallow as truth, so get their trust, then brainwash, then implant the new concept... These old tricks will not work anymore, people start to be aware of manipulations which are done by all kind of salesman on all levels. 
    Beiyin: I prefer to stay with my chair as a fact, because it is comfortable and without I would have difficulties to write these comments... So I will not allow that somebody confuses me and tries to take away the seat I am sitting on! No brainwash! 
    FF: This fact is relative to personal opinion, because a physicist could say, "This object is mostly space." A Hindu might say, "That object is an illusion. Call it what you wish. It isn't real." [cut...]
    BeiYin: The next 632 lines (!) I have deleted. It is just too much. Its about karma etc. Indeed unbearable! There is just one quotation more which gives some practical sense: 
    FF: Fritz Pearls, founder of Gestalt Therapy, said that we can divide opinions into three groups. He named them: 1. *Chicken Shit* (or, Small Talk - "Nice weather we're having."), 2. *Bull Shit* (or, Important Issues - "The merits of his proposal are valuable. The way that I see it. . . ."), and 3. *Elephant Shit* (or, Cosmic Concerns - "We can express the essence of God like. . . ."). Mr. Pearls implies that whatever we say, we're just talking.

    BeiYin: I don't agree and I don't think that's all right that any kind of expression is reduced to 'just an opinion' and called 'shit', because *expressing* ourselves is one of the most important possibilities *on the road* to communicate with our fellow human beings, to get to know ourselves and to feel good and alive. - - Do you remember the song Louis Armstrong used to sing: "...your neighbor says 'How do you do...' and is saying by that: I love you...' So, I personally prefer this kind of view!


C o m m e n t :
BeiYin: There were used a lot of meaningful words, high sophisticates expressions, in such an extent, that an average person hardly could join up, so there were no comments given anymore and so this round ends. I have my doubts after this discussion, if this has any sense. A sense which can be useful for someone's life, for someone's growing process, to open up oneself and to help to avoid traps. The subject: 'avoiding traps' might have brought some light through the discussion. Did it get clear, that 'concepts' might be useful as a help on someone's path, but also that they might become a trap? The example I had taken how a concept might turn into a trap: "THE TRUE BELIEVER, INTEGRITY AND TRUTH..." seems to be pretty clear, but with the concept 'enlightenment' maybe it is not. As long as someone can't proof a concept out of own experience, there is no way to check out about its value for ones life. It can be taken as a possible goal, which might be realized one day, but there is no other way than just to believe in it. And that's something I can't support, in no way! So I prefer to reject this kind of 'supreme concepts' for my own personal use to support my life. And as a consequence I can't support a discussion like this... Expressions might be honest and also the direct outlet of experience and not just of a fantasy or imagination which is manifested by turning itself into a concept. Even if there was an authentic experience, then it had finally guided to a concept. For what purpose? Does it help people to manage their life? To grow somehow? Does it give tools to get to self-knowledgement? Does it help to understand oneself? Or does it serve to give self confirmation to the one who has had the experience and who is clinging on it and by having the concept and being identified with it, getting out some confirmation? Such a person, owning a precious concept, must look out for followers. First it might give enough satisfaction to work on the concept, this might need many years, then it gives satisfaction and confirmation to write and talk to other people to convince them of the value... Do we have any proof, if a concept has a value for our life, if we can't proof its authenticity? I thought about this many years ago and I used a way, which probably has protected me of many traps: 'From their fruits you will know them...' So what I do: I look at this person's life. How this person has realized the concept in his/her own personal life? Is this person a balanced human being, which is living his/her full capacities? Or is it someone, who is hiding behind big words, sophisticated phrases, which nobody can check out for its truth? Is it a loving person? Or is it a person with crippled feelings who don't dare to show feelings and is not able to receive the expression of feelings of another person? Is this person more sensitive than an average person? I mean: Is this person sensitive for the needs of other people or are the own needs the most important? Does this person lives fully or at least partly integrated in our society or somewhere in a dessert not being in danger to be confronted with other people on a daily life level? If the concept has not enriched life of the inventor of the concept, it will not serve for other human beings, that means for me or for you. So better forget about it and go on just with ones own limited concept of life... So let's look out for more practical ways and avoid ideas which are too high up in the clouds. 
A few years later: Obviously concepts are so closely connected with one's personality who gets all feeling of existence out of it, that there is no questioning possible and so no discussion only confirmation for one's self image and stand points...
Similar topic: The ultimate Concept